1.Title, director and release year? A Crude Awakening, Basil Gelpke & Ray McCormack, 2009
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The tagline for this feature length documentary on Peak Oil is, “We’re running out and we don’t have a plan.” At one point in this movie, a university professor tells the story of how a student came up to him and asked, “So will my grandchildren get to ride in an aircraft?” It was a frightening question, because the answer is most likely not.
The point of A Crude Awakening seems to be like that of an alarm clock. Its function is wake people up; To rouse them from their slumber. An intense work that's less a documentary than an extended debate or lecture (like An Inconvenient Truth without the slideshow and studio audience), the film tries to answer a question that seems to have mostly fallen by the wayside in much of the recent discussion about the environment and energy policy. It's a two-part question, actually: When is the oil going to run out, and what's going to happen when it does?
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
-Human Population & Demand For Oil: Human population and industry have exploded in the 100-150 years, since we uncorked this genie. (In the time this writer has been on the planet, the number of humans has more than doubled to over 6 billion). The supply of crude is already diminishing, at the same time as our demand for its offspring: not only fuel, but plastics, fertiliser, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, etc, has become increasingly ravenous. And the worlds most populous nations, India and China, have only just begun their love of the stuff. The United States uses 25% of the world’s oil, yet it possesses less than 4% of the word’s reserves. 98% of transportation in the US is run off of fossil fuels.
-Peak Oil: “Demand is on the march, and supply is flattening out.” Given the billions that have been spent on oil exploration in the last few decades, and that new oil-field discoveries peaked in the late 1960s, the film's take is that it's all downhill from here, with the peak of production just around the corner. Startling footage of the apocalyptic wasteland that is the now-dry oil fields of Baku on the Caspian Sea (decrepit oil derricks, crammed in like so many toothpicks on a caterer's tray, stretch to the flat and muddy horizon) graphically highlight the point. The world has seen a strong and sustained rise in demand for oil, and no giant oil field has been discovered in a while.
-National Energy Security: Japan serves as the case study for this phenomenon. The reason Japan taxes oil heavily is because as a small island nation with little to no natural resources, it has two choices – import oil and let its economy become hostage to oil producing nations or reduce its consumption and protect its sovereignty. Japan has gone to war over natural resources, so it understands the costs of being dependent on other countries. In the 1970s, oil made up over 80% of Japan’s energy sources. Today, oil makes up 50% of its energy mix. By 2030, Japan hopes to reduce this share to 40%.
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
I already knew many of the facts this film espoused before I watched it. So, it wasn’t the facts or statistics that convinced me, it was the unique ways in which the directors portrayed their arguments. Two things in the film struck me. First, we pay more for a cup of Starbucks latte than we do for a gallon of oil. Second, even Energy Advisor to George W. Bush, Roger E. Ebel, says that the oil supply is finite, and that we must find alternatives. If George Bush’s advisor gets peak oil and its consequences, why don’t many Americans get it?
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
I was least compelled by the extremely defeatist tone of the film. There seemed to be no optimism or hope for the future. These sorts of films need to be complemented by other films with more solutions and hope.
6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
Given the volume of detail in the film, the directors do well to keep things comprehensible. They start by telling us what oil is and demonstrating how boom towns have become ghost towns, from Texas to Azerbaijan. I’d like to research how the harvest-and-move-on strategy of oil production affects local economies.
7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
The film isn’t too preachy and has professional credibility. The non-green crew delivers the bad news about our likely very limited future -- there's a Republican congressman in there, along with a Bush energy adviser and a former OPEC leader. This diversity of speakers could possibly mean that the film has more of a chance of being heard. It's a good lesson that other message-focused filmmakers should heed: when your message is this frightening, play it straight.
8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
Alternative energies are an intervention to the carbon economy. Once oil is depleted we are going to have to make new technologies, we won’t have a choice. However in perpetual defeatism, the film only touts alternative energies as the “bandaid on the bullet wound.” The films says that even if every car on the road is a hybrid, we will still be consuming the same amount of oil because of the economic/population growth. There is also talk about hydrogen power, but it’s difficult to get the technologies made because there is no demand for it. They believe that it will be 30-50 years for hydrogen power to be feasible. With regards to the other alternative energies; biomass is very inefficient and that there is really no hope in this type of alternative energy; nuclear energy is expensive and nuclear waste is an issue; wind is also mentioned and all they say is how insignificant it is and how it will never amount to what we actually need; there is enough sunlight to use for energy, but we don’t have the technologies for it and that it is a huge technological challenge.
9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
Being an optimist, the film needs a bit more inspiration and uplift in my opinion. Unfortunately, the documentary misses two critical subjects: global warming and the "What we can do". Global warming is intimately connected with peak oil, and yet it receives only a few brief mentions from the talking heads. The lack of attention may be understandable considering that the connection between the two has only been emphasized in the past few months. Secondly, the documentary does not put forward any strategy for dealing with the problem. The speakers rightfully dash any hopes of magic solutions from fusion, hydrogen and biomass. However, renewables are cavalierly dismissed as being unable to make more than a minor contribution. Conservation and efficiency are barely mentioned at all. David Goodstein of Cal Tech talks up the future of photovoltaics, but all-in-all the picture looks glum. The logo for the film does not help much either - it's a gas hose tied in a hangman's noose.
A Crude Awakening, Basil Gelpke & Ray McCormack, 2009
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The tagline for this feature length documentary on Peak Oil is, “We’re running out and we don’t have a plan.” At one point in this movie, a university professor tells the story of how a student came up to him and asked, “So will my grandchildren get to ride in an aircraft?” It was a frightening question, because the answer is most likely not.
The point of A Crude Awakening seems to be like that of an alarm clock. Its function is wake people up; To rouse them from their slumber. An intense work that's less a documentary than an extended debate or lecture (like An Inconvenient Truth without the slideshow and studio audience), the film tries to answer a question that seems to have mostly fallen by the wayside in much of the recent discussion about the environment and energy policy. It's a two-part question, actually: When is the oil going to run out, and what's going to happen when it does?
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
I already knew many of the facts this film espoused before I watched it. So, it wasn’t the facts or statistics that convinced me, it was the unique ways in which the directors portrayed their arguments. Two things in the film struck me. First, we pay more for a cup of Starbucks latte than we do for a gallon of oil. Second, even Energy Advisor to George W. Bush, Roger E. Ebel, says that the oil supply is finite, and that we must find alternatives. If George Bush’s advisor gets peak oil and its consequences, why don’t many Americans get it?
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
I was least compelled by the extremely defeatist tone of the film. There seemed to be no optimism or hope for the future. These sorts of films need to be complemented by other films with more solutions and hope.
6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
Given the volume of detail in the film, the directors do well to keep things comprehensible. They start by telling us what oil is and demonstrating how boom towns have become ghost towns, from Texas to Azerbaijan. I’d like to research how the harvest-and-move-on strategy of oil production affects local economies.
7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
The film isn’t too preachy and has professional credibility. The non-green crew delivers the bad news about our likely very limited future -- there's a Republican congressman in there, along with a Bush energy adviser and a former OPEC leader. This diversity of speakers could possibly mean that the film has more of a chance of being heard. It's a good lesson that other message-focused filmmakers should heed: when your message is this frightening, play it straight.
8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
Alternative energies are an intervention to the carbon economy. Once oil is depleted we are going to have to make new technologies, we won’t have a choice. However in perpetual defeatism, the film only touts alternative energies as the “bandaid on the bullet wound.” The films says that even if every car on the road is a hybrid, we will still be consuming the same amount of oil because of the economic/population growth. There is also talk about hydrogen power, but it’s difficult to get the technologies made because there is no demand for it. They believe that it will be 30-50 years for hydrogen power to be feasible. With regards to the other alternative energies; biomass is very inefficient and that there is really no hope in this type of alternative energy; nuclear energy is expensive and nuclear waste is an issue; wind is also mentioned and all they say is how insignificant it is and how it will never amount to what we actually need; there is enough sunlight to use for energy, but we don’t have the technologies for it and that it is a huge technological challenge.
9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
Being an optimist, the film needs a bit more inspiration and uplift in my opinion. Unfortunately, the documentary misses two critical subjects: global warming and the "What we can do". Global warming is intimately connected with peak oil, and yet it receives only a few brief mentions from the talking heads. The lack of attention may be understandable considering that the connection between the two has only been emphasized in the past few months. Secondly, the documentary does not put forward any strategy for dealing with the problem. The speakers rightfully dash any hopes of magic solutions from fusion, hydrogen and biomass. However, renewables are cavalierly dismissed as being unable to make more than a minor contribution. Conservation and efficiency are barely mentioned at all. David Goodstein of Cal Tech talks up the future of photovoltaics, but all-in-all the picture looks glum. The logo for the film does not help much either - it's a gas hose tied in a hangman's noose.
Citations:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0776794/
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/10007786-a_crude_awakening_the_oil_crash/
http://rogueimc.org/en/2010/03/15928.shtml